[Vision2020] closing Alturas?

[Bill London]

Lewiston Tribune
Moscow technology park at center of controversy
By Joel Mills 
July 31, 2008


MOSCOW - The Alturas Technology Park in Moscow has been poorly run and the urban renewal district that helped it grow should close within two years, according to one of its founders.

"I'm very much a supporter of urban renewal districts, as long as they're run in a fiscally responsible manner," said B.J. Swanson, vice president of AmericanWest Bank in Moscow and the chairwoman of the Gritman Medical Center board of directors.

But the management of the district's budget has been far from responsible, Swanson said. At a recent meeting of the district commissioners, she balked at spending $40,500 on a new economic development director and a loan of approximately $35,000, both to jump-start the district's newest project, the Legacy Crossing urban renewal area in downtown Moscow's decaying agricultural corridor.

The city of Moscow would also chip in $40,500 for the economic development director's salary.

The district is also considering a $5,000 boost to the administrative cost it pays to the city of Moscow, to $30,000 annually.

Swanson said that money would be better spent on paying off Alturas' debt with the goal of eventually closing the district.

"This is not the kind of economy to be up-staffing for an economic development director," she said.

But one commissioner, Moscow City Councilor John Weber, said Legacy Crossing needs the dedicated work of a full-time development director to get off the ground.

"I think we need somebody to guide that process and sell the district," he said.

The time isn't right to start talking about shutting down the Alturas taxing district, he said.

"I want to see it paid off as quickly as possible," Weber said of Alturas' debt, which was financed through the tax receipts generated by its businesses. "But at the same time I don't want to put a definite time line on it."

Swanson contends if the Alturas debt is retired and the tax district closed, about $300,000 could be returned each year to Latah County taxpayers.

"If (the Alturas commissioners) continue using money out of Alturas to fund Legacy Crossing, then Alturas will continue on for 20 years and the taxpayers will really see no benefit," Swanson said.

The district was only supposed to last for seven years when it was formed in 1996, she said. That proved to be too optimistic, and a revised 20-year time line was implemented. But Swanson said at the current rate of tax receipts, the district could close in its 15th year or sooner.

But Weber questioned the logic of closing it that soon, especially in light of the pending loan to Legacy Crossing. "If we close Alturas (phases I and II) with that money still owed by Legacy Crossing, who do we pay the money back to?" he asked. "The community's going to get their money anyway, as soon as (Alturas) is paid off and the taxing district is closed."

Swanson also questioned the wisdom of buying 6.34 acres from the Thompson family in 2005 for $614,145, dividing it into seven lots, spending about $575,000 on infrastructure improvements, then selling the first two lots for between $80,000 and $90,000 each.

Weber said the lots had to be sold for less than market value to make them attractive to potential buyers.

Latah County Commissioner Jack Nelson also sits on the Alturas board. He said he is still on the fence about the proposed budget, and is waiting to hear public input before he casts his final vote.

But he said he agreed with Swanson "100 percent" that the taxing district should be closed. He also said the loan to Legacy Crossing was fine as long as it was strictly on a short-term basis because the Alturas district currently doesn't have all of the money to retire its debt.

"I certainly wouldn't want that element to hold up closing out Alturas park," he said of the loan.

The public may comment on the urban renewal agency's proposed budget at 7 a.m. Aug. 7 in the Moscow City Council chambers.

---
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20080731/2dd126fa/attachment-0001.html